Will take years upon years and won’t prevent pregnancies.

hmmm, CLEARLY this thread needs moar COWBELLLog in to see images!

did you even read the article, or did you just want to sound smart?

In a paper appearing in the February issue of AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, Baker showed that his nanoemulsion HIV vaccine did produce genital mucosal immunity in mice.

thats a good start, you know, to showing that you can make it work.

my only question is who do they get to have sex with the mice?

While the nanoemulsion HIV vaccine showed promise in Baker’s study, says Amiji, mice are not a good model for HIV infection. The technology must stand up as well to testing in nonhuman primates and eventually humans. Amiji also cautions that the nanoemulsion tactic does not directly address one of the most vexing challenges in creating a vaccination for HIV: the virus’s rapid evolution.

That’s enough “buts” to lower my interest until the next piece of news appears.

Yeah, because aids is the only STD. I mean, seriously, considering the number of previously thought extinct diseases in your stretched crater of a vag, I’d think you’d know that. STDS GOTTA CATCH EM ALL.

dreamserpent Posted:

my only question is who do they get to have sex with the mice?

Biology grad students. They don’t get much in the way of vag anyway, so it’s barely even like work.

Xolver Posted:

Will take years upon years and won’t prevent pregnancies.

Thats not a problem if you are both guys doing it.

NNNRGH-ok.

Look up the active ingredient of most of the female contraceptive pills- they’re very messy broadly active hormone inhibitors. It’s a mistake to think that they’re safe for folks to take- the FDA has sucgreat timesbed to pressure over the past 15 years and has made a lot of things available that really shouldn’t be.

Some of the female oral contraceptives are fairly safe, but folks need to realize that the pharmacology involved is incredibly complicated, and still largely unexplored. The ones like Yaz, which are advertised on the basis of reducing the effects of menstruation, are the worst, because the suppression mechanism is broadbased- it’s not preventing the reproductive tract from accepting hormones, it’s preventing their production. This is crazy-level untested. Male oral contraceptives would be even worse in many respects, as hormone suppression in men can cause problems in a broader set of areas, particularly at a younger age- the male brain is often still releasing abnormally high testosterone levels well into an individual’s mid-twenties.

My point isn’t to say that oral or other contraceptives are bad as a concept- I may be abstinent(insert many obvious jokes here), but I understand their necessity and support their promotion. The issue is that folks bumume that because “they’ve come out with something”, it’s safe, or doesn’t have serious consequences in one realm or another.

Congrats, you just responded to an argument that used specific reference to drug interaction. In this argument, one counterargument was described as an overly broad bumumption about the value of standard policy. You responded with that exact broad bumumption about policy.

I gave an example of how companies can get around FDA regulations in my initial post- a medication marketed and tested as an oral contraceptive is being marketed primarily as a means of reducing menstruation, while paying attention to only the letter of FCC regulations about advertising language. The reason this is significant is because the targeted audiences for these two groups are different. The age group that is attracted to such marketing is both higher and lower in scope than the age group which was tested on in regard to Yaz ’s use as a contraceptive. As a result, a different concentration of users can be expected for Yaz, one which is not the same as that which was initially tested.

In general terms, one of the biggest problems bumociated with pharmaceutical marketing is that, once a medication is approved for one use, doctors frequently prescribe it as a treatment for other symptoms that they have either heard or witnessed the medication having a positive effect on. This cross-slated medication can occur with any drug, and can help discover new, valid uses for a medication-but because they aren’t controlled, they also carry far more risk.

Separately, I mentioned the idea of effects in other areas, outside of the immediate biological. An example of this that comes to mind is the abuse of Adderol(yeah, the ADHD med) on college campuses. I don’t think this is something that particularly has to be worried about for contraceptives(although the idea of an addiction-forming contraceptive is pretty frightening), it is another reason not to bumume that the release of a new medication in any realm is necessarily good- this is the Log in to see images!

Not to mention that while he brings up different examples, he provides no proof to back up his bumertions. We are supposed to take him at face value.